At 1/13/21 05:12 PM, EdyKel wrote:
To no one's surprise, Mitch McConnell is not planning to reconvene the Senate, till after it changes hands, guaranteeing that it will be a Democrat controlled Senate who decides on it.
Maybe because I am a Canadian looking from the outside into this mess you guys are wading through. But 1, it doesn't matter that the Democrats or Republicans are in control of the Senate. As it takes 2/3rds of the members present to decide on a guilty verdict ,when a vote for the impeachment comes up. So with 50 Dem's & 50 Rep's , giving your V.P. the deciding vote on any vote requiring a simple majority ... in this case 2/3's is needed & the Democrats will have to get at least 17 Republicans to vote with them to get impeachment.
BUT -THAT'S IF THE ENTIRE HOUSE IS IN SESSION, so if for example only 75 Senators were present on that day, 50 votes would be 2/3's ...So I suppose a bunch of Republicans could refuse to attend & that could give it to the Democrats, with those Republicans ,who were not present the ability to say "I didn't vote to impeach" to their voters
Which viewing the news and broadcasts talking to "Average Americans" Are definitely not the sharpest spoons in the drawer. SO they could still be strong Trump supporters & could easily tell themselves (as well as everyone else) that their candidate didn't turn on the President Trump & vote to impeach him.
Which is IMO splitting hairs as by not attending you would be complicit in impeaching Trump on this 2nd attempt to do so.
I also see a Huge problem with your Constitution, that either was deliberately left open by your founding fathers ....Or possibly was never considered.
The 'Oath of Office' - IF the Members of Congress & the Senate take an Oath to protect the Constitution & the Nation, as we seen from the first Impeachment trial. The Republicans did not consider the evidence and there were several of the out spoken ones who gave interviews before any evidence was given. -QUOTE- "THEY WOULD NEVER VOTE TO IMPEACH. & He was quoted as saying "I AM NOT AN IMPARTIAL JURER" Which is a direct violation of their oath to consider any crimes alleged & if evidence was presented that showed guilt, they would be obligated by that oath they have already said they would violate, before the trial was done.
It seems there's no way to sanction a member of the Government who deliberately violates their oath.
That is deeply troubling.
I would also like to point out many people I have spoken to here in Eastern Canada, believe your President is mentally unstable & the mental illness he is suffering , may need professional treatment to help him, because if the average citizen attempted to act the way he is, they would be held for observation at the very least, but I guess being rich & a member of the Government gives you a lot of leeway the regular citizen doesn't enjoy.